All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 16, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
30:34
October 16, 2014, Thursday, Hour #3
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Greetings, my friends.
Welcome back.
It's great to have you on the Rush Limbaugh program as we head on down the tracks.
Broadcast excellence, all yours.
Telephone number, if you want to be on the program, is 800-282-2882 and the email address, lrushbow at EIBNet.com.
How many checks is I just got this could be interesting too.
Let me put this.
I just got an audio someday roster some of the highlights from the congressional hearing on Capitol Hill today.
House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee hearing on the Eboa crisis.
Dr. Thomas Frieden.
Dr. Thomas Frieden, Marsha Blackburn Friedman, Friedrich.
Okay.
Oh, he's got a new answer here.
I don't believe.
We got to play this one.
I just basically scanned this one.
This Frieden guy, he's got to want to be thrown out of office here.
You just got to hear this.
I don't want to characterize it before I actually hear it.
I don't want to tell you what it says and have it not say that and look like I got egg on my face.
Here's the setup.
Fred Upton, Republican Michigan, is acting or asking Frieden, the director of the CDC, this question.
Question I have is, if other countries are restricting travel from these African countries, and as you said, the fundamental job of the U.S. now is to protect American citizens, why can't we move to a similar ban on travel from these other countries?
The exposure rate of 14 days or 15 days is well within the 21 days of incubation.
And in fact, knowing that there are 150 people coming a day from those countries, we have not 100% 94% in terms of screening at U.S. airports.
It seems to me it's not a fail-safe system.
It's put into place here.
Right now, we know who's coming in.
If we try to eliminate travel, the possibility that some will travel over land, will come from other places, and we don't know that they're coming in will mean that we won't be able to do multiple things.
We won't be able to check them for fever when they leave.
Okay, that's one.
There's part two.
Just hang on.
I know that sounds confusing, but there's a part two.
He said, right now we know who's coming in.
Don't forget that.
Right now we know he's coming in.
If we try to eliminate travel, the possibility that some will travel over land, come from other places, and we don't know that they're coming will mean we won't be able to do multiple things.
Do you know what he just said there?
What did he see?
You're nodding like you know what he did.
You know what?
He just threw amnesty overboard.
He just threw amnesty under the bus.
He just threw Obama's precious open borders under the bus.
He says, if we try to eliminate travel, then they're going to come here illegally.
Acknowledging there are others already doing that.
If we try to eliminate travel, the possibility that some will travel over land, like the Hoof Express through the Rio Grande River, will come from other places.
And we don't know that they're coming in.
And it'll mean that we won't be able to do multiple things.
In other words, what's already happening will continue to happen, and yet some of the people coming might have Ebola.
Oh, no!
He can't last much longer.
The Chamber of Commerce is having a conniption fit right now.
Luis Gutieris is having a conniption fit right now.
So his answer seems to be if we don't let them come in on planes, they'll come by land over our porous border.
Sounds like a lot of people.
Borders can be porous, especially in this part of the world.
We won't be able to check them for fever when they leave.
We won't be able to check them for fever when they arrive.
We won't be able, as we do currently, to take a detailed history to see if they were exposed when they arrive.
When they arrive, we wouldn't be able to oppose quarantine as we now can if they have high-risk contact.
We wouldn't be able to obtain detailed locating information, which we do now, including not only name and date of birth, but email addresses, cell phone numbers, address, addresses of friends, so that we could identify and locate them.
We wouldn't be able to provide all of that information as we do now to state and local health departments so that they can monitor them under supervision.
Well, ladies and gentlemen, it sounds to me like he's saying that if we don't let them come in on planes.
What he's saying is unbelievable.
Do you understand what he's saying?
If we don't let them come in under our auspices, they're going to come in via illegal immigration, and we're not going to know who they are, and it's going to be even worse.
Like the 300,000 children that came in and might have brought iterovirus, and like the 12 million who are already here that we want to grant amnesty, if we don't control, the reason if we shut down travel into our this guy, he has swerved into something, folks, that is totally, unless I'm missing something, I didn't see this coming.
This guy is acknowledging that we do not have a closed border.
He's acknowledging we cannot control who comes into the country.
This guy is saying, the Centers for Disease Control Director, Dr. Thomas Frieden, is saying that we cannot close airports.
We cannot shut down flights to this country because other parts of our border are wide open with thousands already crossing the border.
And we don't know who they are.
And we don't know what they have.
And we don't know how sick they might be.
And we don't know and will have no way of knowing.
Oh, man.
Oh, my.
Do you know what's happening at the White House right now?
Do you?
The other alternative is this guy doesn't speak without it approved and written.
Let's look at this from the standpoint of the low-information voter.
And let's look at this from what does the regime really, really want.
Well, we know the regime really wants open borders.
We know the regime really wants amnesty.
We also know the regime, by virtue of freedom itself, does not want to shut down flights from African countries where Ebola is broken out.
So that's going to continue.
We're not going to close the airports these flights.
They don't want that to happen.
They don't want to shut the airports.
They don't want to eliminate travel in from Africa.
They just don't want to because we're not, you know, we're all citizens of the world here.
We're not, we don't have any right to shut our country off from other people.
I think they're relying on the fact low-information crowd's never going to hear this.
And if they did, they'd never put two and two together.
They're relying on the fact the media is not going to report it the way I just have.
They're relying on the fact that the Republicans aren't going to make hay about it because they also want amnesty.
And so I think they're rolling the dice here.
They go ahead and say this and use our already open borders, which aren't going to change, as a reason to keep them open to Ebola patients.
I think they're rolling a dice that there will not be any negative blowback on the southern border being open and all that.
That's my guess.
Otherwise, they're relying on people remaining ignorant because they're relying on the media not seeing, hearing what just happened there.
They're relying on this being relegated to new media, this take.
Otherwise, I can't explain this.
The alternative is this guy's just really stepped in it, didn't know it.
Nobody was able to get there and shut him up.
And now they've got a problem on their hands.
What do you mean?
If he's still there tomorrow, if he's still there tomorrow, we know that this was intended.
What do you mean next week?
Brief time out here, folks.
We'll be back and continue after this.
Don't you?
Back to the phones we go.
This is Tom in Pittsburgh.
Welcome, sir.
It's great to have you with us, EIB Network.
Hello.
Rush, it is an honor.
Been listening to you since you were taped delight on the weekends here in Pittsburgh.
Well, oh my gosh.
You know, I had forgotten those days.
Weekend.
Oh, wow.
Weekends.
Hey, I wanted to ask you about that Washington Post poll and identifying as somebody identifying as Democrats.
I wonder if there's a kind of a corollary to the Wilder effect on that with the way the Republicans are portrayed everywhere in the media.
The people just don't want to identify themselves as Republicans.
Sounded like the Wilder type thing.
Well, I can understand how you'd want to think that, but I think we have too much real world data to suggest that there's no WILDER effect.
What he's saying here, folks.
Okay, so you got a pollster comes along and asking you what you think of the two parties, and the wired effect would make the respondents, oh, the Democrats.
Democrats care much more because they think the pollster is a Democrat, and they don't want to make the pollster think that they like Republicans because the pollsters will think they're racist and sexist because that's what Republicans are, so forth and so on.
And it's an intriguing thought, Tom, and it would be fascinating if it were true.
But I think there's too much real world data, election returns.
If you look at pop culture books, movies, TV shows, and late-night comics, and look at the way Republicans are made fun of, it's all real.
It's all legit.
You know, you reminded me, though, it's a good thought.
I did not, I erred.
I forgot to close the loop.
I don't know how many of you are still hanging.
said that there's a way around this, a way to get started on it anyway.
And it involves those times when Republicans win elections.
Now, the example that I gave yesterday, and by the way, this is all academic because the Republican Party today may arguably be liberal white as opposed to conservative.
The Republican establishment, you know as well as I do, hates the Tea Party.
They don't like conservatives because they don't like anybody for smaller government.
Establishment people, whether they're Republicans or Democrats, live off big government.
They want the power of running it.
They want the power of dispensing and spending the money and of raising the money.
They want to get involved in close relationships with CEOs, corporate cronyism, if you will.
So it's not altogether granted, certain that the Republican Party is conservative.
But if it were, and if it were really trying to take advantage of victories, what it would do, and this one, let's just assume, hypothetically assume that the polling data is right.
Let's say the Republicans win the Senate.
And all the way down the ballot, let's say Republicans have another year here like they had in 2010.
And by the way, just to remind you, 2010 was a huge defeat for Democrats all the way down the ballot.
The Democrats lost almost 1,000 offices, seats, and offices nationwide in the midterm elections of 2010.
I'm thinking mayors, dog catchers, governors, not just members of the House and the Senate, but all the way down the ballot, all over the country, they got shellacked.
It was major.
Well, I'll just use that.
What did not happen after that election?
Something very obvious did not happen after the Republican, the people that won, the victors, did not hammer home why.
They didn't stride to the microphones and explain the victory.
And they didn't tell people why the Tea Party voted the way it did.
And they didn't tell people why people were unhappy with Obama and the Democrats.
They didn't do any of that.
They were polite and they were nice.
And they said they weren't going to gloat.
And they weren't going to be ramming it down the throats.
And all of this is under the guise of voters don't like conflict.
Voters don't like Braggadocio.
Voters don't like partisanship.
And so the Republicans have to be magnanimous and very humble and almost apologetic when they win.
And I cited the example of George H.W. Bush when the Soviet Union fell.
Now, that to me is a great example.
I'll tell you why.
Soviet communism was responsible for tens of millions of deaths over its lifetime.
Soviet communism denied liberty, freedom, basic human rights to tens of millions of people over its lifetime.
Soviet communism spread poverty everywhere it went.
Soviet communism destroyed everything it touched, including in the end its own military, for all intents and purposes.
When the Berlin Wall came down, who got credit?
Gorbachev.
Gorbachev got credit for seeing the light.
Gorbachev got credit.
The new emancipator.
Gorbachev brought about freedom for the world.
And this is because fellow travelers in the media dare not report the negatives of Soviet communism.
The Republican Party did not explain why the Berlin Wall came to the Republican Party did not celebrate it.
The Republican Party did not take the occasion to educate, to inform, and to celebrate the fall of a system of government that was responsible for death, for misery, for poverty for tens of millions of people.
Teachable moment lost.
An opportunity to become the good guys.
An opportunity to represent economic prosperity, wealth creation, abundance, freedom, liberty lost.
Same thing's going to happen this time.
If all these pre-election polls are right, we'll just hypothetically, you know, I don't like to proclaim anything done beforehand, but let's say the pre-election polls are right, and let's say the Republicans win the Senate.
What do you bet there won't be any attempt to tell the voters why they did what they did, to congratulate them, and to then set the course for what this change is going to mean in terms of real people in their lives?
That's what has to happen.
The Republican Party simply refuses to identify the enemy, political enemy.
The Republican Party refuses to tell people how voting for the Democrats is hurting them.
The Republican Party refuses by real world example, not just theory, not just rhetoric.
The Republican Party refuses to celebrate its victories and to define them and to explain people why they happened and why they need to keep happening.
That's how this gets turned around.
There is a solution to this.
Now, the branding issue where Republicans are thought to be mean-spirited, extreme, not cool, not hip.
You know, folks, winners are all thought to be hip.
Winning is cool, isn't it?
Everybody wants to be a winner.
Everybody wants to be on the winning side.
When the Republicans win, the cool guys lose.
That makes them so mad.
I don't, I'm sitting here as a guy on the radio, but I don't think if it were done right, even this pop culture branding thing could change.
All it would take is Reagan made some inroads in this area.
Not completely, not totally.
And by the way, we keep citing Reagan because he's the only guy there.
There isn't somebody else who did what he did.
It's not, oh, God, woe is us.
Can we bring back Reagan?
It's not that.
It's not hero worship or any of that.
It's just the best living example.
Not living, but I mean, current with our lifespan, lifetimes example.
And there's still teachable lessons, real-world lessons to garner from that.
Republican Party, I know, is not interested.
But back to the guys.
I don't think there's a wilder effect here.
I don't think that there's anything unreal about the fact that Republicans aren't seen as hip and cool and with it.
I mean, the idea that Democrats care about people like me and Republicans don't, that's been ingrained for so long.
And there's not a Republican who knows how in the world to fight it.
Because the Republicans don't know how to talk about liberty and freedom.
Or they don't want to talk about it.
I don't know which.
I know it's easy to be looking on the outside thinking you have answers.
Break time.
Back after this.
You've seen the picture of the nurse getting on the G3, the military color, the gray G3.
The same G3 that went to Africa to get the two missionaries or go back.
This is Nurse Vinson, I believe, was being flown to Emory Hospital in Atlanta, and they put her on that same G3.
And everybody in this picture is in full hazmat gear, except one guy.
This one guy who is right next to her stretcher.
And he's just wearing a shirt, pair of slacks.
He didn't even have a mask on.
So people saw the picture.
Who is this guy?
How the hell did this guy get in this picture?
What is this guy doing on this detail?
Why doesn't this guy have the hazmat gear on?
Everybody else does.
Well, it turns out that this guy, if you may not have seen the picture, but it's out there.
We'll have it at rushlimbo.com if you haven't seen it.
It turns out that the CDC says that this guy is a protocol supervisor.
I'm sorry, I can't mean to laugh.
He's a protocol supervisor.
Do you know what a protocol supervisor does?
The airline representative said the protocol supervisor who wasn't wearing protective gear for a higher level of safety.
Our medical professionals in biohazard suits have limited vision and mobility.
It is the protocol supervisor's job to watch each person carefully and give them verbal directions to make sure no close contact protocols are violated, that the hazmat people don't bump into something and rip the suit because their vision is limited and their mobility is limited.
You've got to have a guy who can watch where they're going and tell them if they need to stop and change direction.
And he's the protocol supervisor.
The protocol supervisor is not outfitted in hazmat gear.
And a representative of the airline, the Phoenix Air, is who owns the G3.
They say there's absolutely no problem with this.
And in fact, this ensures higher level of safety for everybody involved.
Again, they challenge our perception of common sense.
If everybody but one is in a hazmat suit because of the patients having Ebola, then how come one guy not in hazmat ensures a higher level of safety for everybody involved?
I guess they mean except him.
It can't be ensuring a higher level of safety for him.
So what is he making a sacrifice?
Is he rolling a dice that he won't contract it in order to help the others who are hazmat outfitted make sure that they don't stumble or because they're walking up airline steps and I can understand in a hazmat suit your movement's restricted and your vision might be limited and some of the guys on one end of the stretcher are backing up the stairs.
So there has to be somebody there to tell them if they're about to miss a step or whatever.
Except this guy's not, he's at the far end of the group.
I mean, he's as far away from the hazmat people as he can get.
But he's the hazmat protocol supervisor.
Okay, let's see.
Yep, here is David in Westport, Massachusetts.
Thank you for waiting, sir.
Great to have you on the EIB network.
Hello.
Hello, Rush.
Thank you for having me.
You bet, sir.
I have a question concerning Ebola protocol.
Yes.
At some point, especially with the open borders, there will be cases of Ebola that didn't happen from direct contact with a patient or known contact or travel to Ebola countries.
At what point will the CDC decide to change the protocol that hospitals are following?
Wait a minute.
I lost you there.
At some point with open borders, there'll be cases of Ebola that didn't happen from direct contact with a patient.
Are no one in contact or travel to Ebola countries?
At what point will this in other words?
There may be people coming into emergency rooms with the beginning symptoms.
And when asked the current questions, current protocol questions, have you traveled to these countries in Africa?
Have you had contact with someone who may have contracted Ebola?
You answer all these questions, no, but you may still have Ebola.
At some point, everybody is going to be exposed.
I'm having trouble...
You think everybody's going to be exposed at some?
Well, because hospital protocols are so lax right now, you mean?
That's part of it, but with the admission that the borders are open and that they can't, you know, CDC can't keep track of people coming in and out, whether or not they have a high temperature or not.
If I'm under, that is not going to, they are not going to change the protocols at the borders, if that's what you're asking me.
They're not.
I mean, I don't know if they will ever be able to prove one way or the other that an Ebola patient came in via the open.
I guess that's your question is: how are they going to know where somebody who has Ebola got it if the borders remain open and all that?
Correct.
Well, I don't know, but one thing I do know: they will do whatever they have to do to tell all of us it has nothing to do with borders being open.
Oh, absolutely.
Rush, I also have a comment, two comments.
Yeah.
One comment is: my son is proudly reading your first book in school during quiet reading time.
He's six.
Wow.
Six years old.
That's beneath the target, but that's great.
I know.
He loves it.
Well, thank you, sir, very much.
I appreciate that.
He's reading the first one?
Yeah.
Does he have the second one?
No.
Oh, that's too bad.
My next comment is: when it is determined which aircraft carried the second Ebola nurse, it will have to be renamed the Ebola Gay.
Don't hang up the phone here, David.
Oh, my God.
From Ebola Phobes to the Ebola Gay.
That airplane, by the way, flew five additional loads of passengers.
Not just the first group, 132.
Make sure he doesn't hang up.
That plane, before they took it out of service, it flew five other routes somewhere.
The Ebola gay.
You know, it had to happen, folks.
It had, you know, this serious hand-wringing stuff.
I mean, people seek a release from it.
David, I'm going to send you the second.
I'm going to send you and your son a copy of the second book, complete with audio versions of both.
And I'm going to send you, when we get them, the new book that is available for pre-order now, Rush Revere and the American Revolution.
It comes out October 28th, but it went on pre-order last week.
And we love it.
We're so excited about this one.
I mean, they're all great.
They're all our babies.
But this one is really, really special because of its tie and dedication to the U.S. military in one of the storylines.
Rush Revere and the American Revolution.
We'll send you that too when we get it.
I got to take a quick time out here, folks.
Time is zipping by.
Be right back.
El Rushboat Talent on loan from God.
Lisa, St. Simon's Island, Georgia.
I've got about a minute, but I wanted to get to you.
Hi.
Hi.
Do I have the honor of speaking with Professor Revere?
You do indeed.
I'm so happy.
I have a question, which is why did Obama feel that he needed to make a statement directly to the Liberians?
This was a couple of weeks ago, I believe.
I don't understand.
It's political, of course, but to what end?
They can't vote for him.
There are two answers.
No, no, no, no.
It has nothing to do with it.
There are two answers.
One, we are.
We're all citizens of the world.
There aren't any nations anymore.
And number two, he probably thinks that the citizens of Liberia may have had their feelings hurt by all the negative commentary about Ebola in this country.
And he wanted to let them know that at least he didn't think that way about him.
And I don't doubt that that's a factor.
But more than anything, Obama's not president of the United States.
And the United States is no different anymore.
We're just people of the world.
Pure and simple.
Learn it, love it, live it.
Open line Friday tomorrow, ladies and gentlemen.
We will look forward to it.
Got the Cardinals and Giants tonight in the National League Championship Series.
So good luck to whoever's for whoever there.
And we will see you tomorrow.
▲
Export Selection